<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: British Sign Carrier Contract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/</link>
	<description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 20:19:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bilbo</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-216722</link>
		<dc:creator>bilbo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-216722</guid>
		<description>god   ihope  so   poor wld  wth    out   uk     oll to many   moslims      britistain     future   god help   gb   uk  may be   over run    shit gov     past     future    </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>god   ihope  so   poor wld  wth    out   uk     oll to many   moslims      britistain     future   god help   gb   uk  may be   over run    shit gov     past     future</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: christie</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-64316</link>
		<dc:creator>christie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 13:19:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-64316</guid>
		<description>brittish have one of longest history of naval power i am sure they can build a tow carriers without even thing brits will probably rule the sea again
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>brittish have one of longest history of naval power i am sure they can build a tow carriers without even thing brits will probably rule the sea again</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bismark</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-64315</link>
		<dc:creator>Bismark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-64315</guid>
		<description>Just implying a campign sphychology about the Falklands gbr/argantina war and polotics ?
Did it ever accur to anyone that the falklands are actualy called maldines! and have long before any brit decided to live there was common knowledge to argentinians belonged to them for 100&#039;s of years prior  ?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just implying a campign sphychology about the Falklands gbr/argantina war and polotics ?<br />
Did it ever accur to anyone that the falklands are actualy called maldines! and have long before any brit decided to live there was common knowledge to argentinians belonged to them for 100’s of years prior  ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve a</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-64314</link>
		<dc:creator>steve a</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:04:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-64314</guid>
		<description>Ijust hope that the government funds the entire project with the accountants taking a back seat...then cost cutting and equipment shortages will be avoided.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ijust hope that the government funds the entire project with the accountants taking a back seat…then cost cutting and equipment shortages will be avoided.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-165059</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-165059</guid>
		<description>Praise be,  Britain back in the big carrier League. Ironic that the Labour Party is awarding the Contracts.  After all, they were the folks who scrapped Ark Royal and Eagle, with the excuse that carriers were outdated.  This in the 70s.  As an old carrier man I only hope to live long enough to see them commissioned.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Praise be,  Britain back in the big carrier League. Ironic that the Labour Party is awarding the Contracts.  After all, they were the folks who scrapped Ark Royal and Eagle, with the excuse that carriers were outdated.  This in the 70s.  As an old carrier man I only hope to live long enough to see them commissioned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-165058</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:54:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-165058</guid>
		<description>Praise be,  Britain back in the big carrier League. Ironic that the Labour Party is awarding the Contracts.  After all, they were the folks who scrapped Ark Royal and Eagle, with the excuse that carriers were outdated.  This in the 70s.  As an old carrier man I only hope to live long enough to see them commissioned.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Praise be,  Britain back in the big carrier League. Ironic that the Labour Party is awarding the Contracts.  After all, they were the folks who scrapped Ark Royal and Eagle, with the excuse that carriers were outdated.  This in the 70s.  As an old carrier man I only hope to live long enough to see them commissioned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nelson Patrick</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-165057</link>
		<dc:creator>Nelson Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-165057</guid>
		<description>Bigger Carriers!
Sweet! Britian will rule the seas again.
If we had a bigger stronger Royal Navy, Iran would never think about capturing our saliors.
Argentina...stay out of the Falklands or we will give you another taste of British Naval Power!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bigger Carriers!<br />
Sweet! Britian will rule the seas again.<br />
If we had a bigger stronger Royal Navy, Iran would never think about capturing our saliors.<br />
Argentina…stay out of the Falklands or we will give you another taste of British Naval Power!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-64310</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:48:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-64310</guid>
		<description>My money is on the Brits to do it right.  We&#039;ve got to do our part and provide the F35 that does what it is supposed to do.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My money is on the Brits to do it right.  We’ve got to do our part and provide the F35 that does what it is supposed to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brad</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-64308</link>
		<dc:creator>brad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:07:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-64308</guid>
		<description>i think its great that they are finally going to show the world that they can project more than a few measly harriers from the invisible class. but didnt they already have a nuclear powered carrier called the H.M.S. Excalibur?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i think its great that they are finally going to show the world that they can project more than a few measly harriers from the invisible class. but didnt they already have a nuclear powered carrier called the H.M.S. Excalibur?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Thumwood</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2007/08/07/british-sign-carrier-contract/#comment-165055</link>
		<dc:creator>David Thumwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:03:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3663#comment-165055</guid>
		<description>I cannot belive the comments with regard to the supposed incursion into Iranian waters by British Sailors and Marines. Any half decent strategist, general or admiral will tell his team to stand down and fight another day in the face of superior forces, gone are the days of heroes who decide to engage the enemy without thinking, then risking the life of his team.
Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I cannot belive the comments with regard to the supposed incursion into Iranian waters by British Sailors and Marines. Any half decent strategist, general or admiral will tell his team to stand down and fight another day in the face of superior forces, gone are the days of heroes who decide to engage the enemy without thinking, then risking the life of his team.<br />
Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

